CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 661Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePatient Satisfaction in HealthcarePsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring Patients’ Trust in their Primary Care Providers

Open access
Hall, Mark A., Zheng, Beiyao, Dugan, Elizabeth, Camacho, Fabian, Kidd, Kristin E., Mishra, Aneil, Balkrishnan, Rajesh·2002·Medical Care Research and Review
DOI 10.1177/1077558702059003004
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Existing scales to measure trust in physicians have differing content and limited testing. To improve on these measures, a large item pool (n = 78) was generated following a detailed conceptual model and expert review. After pilot testing, the best-performing items were validated with a random national sample (n = 9) and a regional sample of HMO members (n = 99). Various psychometric tests produced a 10-item unidimensional scale consistent with most aspects of the conceptual model.Compared with previous scales, the Wake Forest physician trust scale has a somewhat improved combination of internal consistency, variability, and discriminability. The scale is more strongly correlated with satisfaction, desire to remain with a physician, willingness to recommend to friends, and not seeking second opinions; it is less correlated with insurer trust, membership in managed care, and choice of physician; and correlations are equivalent with lack of disputes, length of relationship, and number of visits.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1077558702059003004

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Braithwaite, V., 1998, Trust and governance
  2. Caterinicchio, R. P., 1979, Science and Medicine, 13, 81
  3. Gorsuch, R. L., 1983, Factor analysis
  4. Hardin, R., 1991, Strategy and choice, 185
  5. Holmes, J. G., 1989, Close relationships, 187
  6. Khattree, R., 2000, Multivariate data reduction and discrimination
  7. 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Oldendick, R. W., 1988, Journal of Official Statistics, 4, 307
  9. Sandman, D., 2000, Out of touch: American men and the health care system
  10. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000, Health insurance status of the civilian noninstitutionalized population: 1998

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 661

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hall, M. A., Zheng, B., Dugan, E., Camacho, F., Kidd, K. E., Mishra, A., & Balkrishnan, R.
Affiliations
  • Wake Forest University (US)
  • Genentech (US)
  • New England Research Institutes (US)
ORCID
Venue
Medical Care Research and Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2002-09
Volume
59
Issue
3
Pages
293-318
ISSN
  • 1077-5587 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6801
DOI
10.1177/1077558702059003004
OpenAlex
W2023580352
Cited by
661
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 27
FWCI
18.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Medical Care Research and Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
patient trust, trust in physicians, primary care, psychometric validation, patient satisfaction, physician recommendations, managed care, physician-patient relationship
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Confidentiality, Health Maintenance Organizations, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Patients, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Family, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, Patient Satisfaction, Focus Groups

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review